MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197060583 · doi:10.1177/084456211304500302

Health Inequities Experienced by Aboriginal Children with Respiratory Conditions and Their Parents

2013· article· en· W2197060583 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Moira Stewart, Malcolm King, Roxanne Blood, Nicole Letourneau, Jeffrey R. Masuda, Sharon Anderson, Lisa Bourque Bearskin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVulnerability (computing)BlameHealth careFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma and allergies are common conditions among Aboriginal children and adolescents. The purpose of this study was to assess the health and health-care inequities experienced by affected children and by their parents. Aboriginal research assistants conducted individual interviews with 46 Aboriginal children and adolescents who had asthma and/or allergies (26 First Nations, 19 Métis, 1 Inuit) and 51 parents or guardians of these children and adolescents. Followup group interviews were conducted with 16 adolescents and 25 parents/ guardians. Participants reported inadequate educational resources, environmental vulnerability, social and cultural pressures, exclusion, isolation, stigma, blame, and major support deficits. They also described barriers to health-service access, inadequate health care, disrespectful treatment and discrimination by health-care providers, and deficient health insurance. These children, adolescents, and parents recommended the establishment of culturally appropriate support and education programs delivered by Aboriginal peers and health professionals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207